 Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining us for today's Biological and Physical Sciences Division Community Town Hall with Craig Coondraught, the BPS Division Director, also known as Biological and Physical Sciences here at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. We have members of the BPS Leadership and Open Source Science Initiative working group with us today as well. They will share updates and highlights and answer your questions. In addition to Craig, we have Sylvain Kost, Project Manager for Ames Life Sciences Data Archive and Gene Lab. He is also a member of the BPS Open Source Science Initiative working group. Sylvain will be our presenter today. Today's community town hall is being recorded and the recording and presentation will be made available later today on science.nasa.gov. If you have a question, please submit your question using our I-O system. The link is shared in the chat. The I-O system will provide instructions on how to submit a question. You can also upvote questions. And with that, I will hand it off to Craig Coondraught. Thank you, Gamble. And good morning and good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us for this town hall. BPS, as many of you know, has had a long-standing commitment to open science and we are in complete alignment with NASA-wide goals to increase scientific research throughput and the transparency of government-funded research by transforming the collection, the preservation and curation, and distribution of scientific data. To that end, the Science Mission Directorate, which BPS is in, has issued the scientific information policy, SPD 41, and actually, I think it was just this week released an update to it, SPD 41A. And this policy follows NASA and federal policy. And because the nature of science varies very much across the Science Mission Directorate divisions, each division is charged with creating its more specific scientific data management policy. And BPS released our policy last month and it's consistent with the NASA and SMD policies. And this town hall today will start off with a review of that policy, but we're also leaving a lot of time for questions and answers following that. Our next speaker will be Silvan Costas, as Gamble said, and just in advance, I want to thank him for being the point of the spear leading this effort. It's been the work of many people with lots of input, but Silvan deserves a lot of credit for bringing this together. One other comment before I go, we know that, you know, data policies are the right thing to do for many reasons, but we know implementation will not be free. And that means costs to the investigators and also means costs to NASA systems. And it's our express intent to build these costs into grants in the future and our field centers that have the infrastructure that support a lot of this archiving. And particularly as we respond to the Decadal survey for biological and physical sciences, which is slated for release in June. As we plan our response to that Decadal survey, we plan to build in a very robust support of open science along lines we're about to talk about in this town hall. So again, thanks very much for joining us today and look forward to our conversation. Gamble, back to you. Gamble, I'm not hearing you. That could be me, but. Apologize, that was me. So Craig, you did a great job teeing up Silvan. So, Silvan, off to you. Thank you. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Yes. Well, thank you, Craig for the introduction. You made my life easier. Maybe we can just go straight to questions. No, I'm kidding. Okay. So this is actually the result of two years of work. And I'm really excited to share with you the BPS data policy. Let me dive into it. So let's see if I can go to the next side. Perfect. So let me introduce you first the to the SMD open source science initiative. And we are part of the working group. Like, you know, Craig mentioned, and this working group has been focusing on many different activities. You've heard many of them. If you were at the SGSR, you've heard me at the open science, you know, we had a two hour session there. You've heard about transform to open science, which is really, I'll talk a bit more about this. We've talked to you about course resist science discoveries and the new changes in the roses element. And all these are focusing on just move this out of the way. Trying to create a more equitable impactful environment for our science and NASA. Today, we're going to focus on the policy development, SPD 41 and really the implementation for us BPS. So before I go into the BPS policy, let's first give you some kind of background. And again, you know, Craig already did quite a bit of this. So I'll try to go quickly so we can go to questions. But let's talk a bit about tops tops is actually a mission 40 million our mission for a year. And the goal is to accelerate, accelerate the adoption of open science. And we were creating a quite a few incentive with this budget to to really, there's a cultural change and it's to happen in science across the board. It's not only BPS is really remarkable to see that this is really a challenge for every division. And we, we recognize in this and tops is really trying to accelerate the adoption of open science. So here on the right, the goal is by 2027. One of the goals to really have a curriculum to train our scientists towards open science and really show them the value of open science and make them and breast open science. So by 2027, we hope that we will try to about 20,000 scientists across the entire SMD. There will be a badge that you can get through this. So stay tuned for this open science curriculum curriculum opportunities that are coming. The thing that we're focusing on is really engaging into underrepresented communities and but you're going to hear a lot the term inclusivity. It's really important and open access is really opening door to include everyone. And so this is one of the men that that we have. And like I said, the tops program is really working on all kinds of different incentive to adopt open science. So, five years going your way next year is the year of open science as you can see here in the title so it's really exciting. I've been doing open science at Jean lab for six years. So of course, you know, it's, you know, it's music to my ears. I have to say, but I'm also a principal investigator. So I understand the other side of the coin. That's, you know, there are some consequences that we need to address. And I hope this discussion today is going to be stimulating. So, let me do a bit of a dive back into the past. And actually on the issue, pay your attention to that little blue thing on the left. Let's start from the bottom. SPD 41 a the kind of like the context as to why what's really exciting is I joined the OSSI group that had a different name back two years ago. Focusing on SPD 41, the original that I posted that SMD release in, I think, 2019. And we were working on revising this document. And so SPD 41 a, as we heard Thomas Berkin signed this document only a few days ago, I think, or last week. So it's really recent, but this is work in progress. We've been on it for two years, frankly. And, and what's really again show really, it can show really how forward thinking we are at NASA because when OSTP for those of you who follow this year was really fabulous for open science. We have the White House that came out with this OSTP memo. I'm just going to quote it here and showing free immediate and equitable access to federally funded research. The good news is that we already had SPD 41 and SPD 41 it was in process. So when this came out was like, yeah, I mean, we're right there. We are really thinking about those things we, we, you know, we are ahead of the game if you want. And then if you focus on the top here, you know, the goal is to, you know, existing NASA and federal guidance on open data software and publication. Our goal is to increase the accessibility, the inclusivity and the reproducibility of the data. I would emphasize on that word reproducibility, something that people don't realize and it's been going on for, I think, 10, 15 years. There's been a lot of minus creep and publication showing that there is a problem in science these days. It is not always easy to reproduce the publication that we see in nature and science and all the very high impact journal and open science is trying to fix this problem. And open science is not just a US mandate that the White House just came up with. It is, this has been something going on for the past 20 years. You know, as Craig said, you know, BPS, you know, was, you know, very forward thinking as well. You know, GNAP was one of these first big initiatives that we have that's been really focused on open science. So it is not new to us. It is, it is not something unique to the US. It is really something that is changing science and it's a good thing for us. So I hope that you are convinced of that. So we are forward-looking. What it means is that any application, any grants that is funded through Rosas 23 and forward will follow these guidelines. Now existing grants and missions should also adopt the policy if it's consistent with available resources. Well, I'm sure people will have questioned about that statement that was in SPD 41A. I don't want to spend too much time on SPD 41A and focus on BPS, but those are the key highlights on the right that you need to remember from SPD 41A. And again, it was written in a general manner, leaving some discretion to each division to really address specific points that are really, you know, focusing on the ecosystem of each division. So this is what I'm going to spend some time today is describing this BPS policy. But the concept are the same peer-reviewed publications are need to be openly available with no unbargo period. So that's new to a certain extent research data and software shared at the time of publication or end of funding award. Mission data release as soon as possible. And any mission unrestricted mission software are developed openly, a science workshop and meeting held openly to enable broad participation. Again, this concept of inclusivity is really essential. So again, the thing I always tell myself when I work on these exercises for open science is that if you think about our goals, reproducibility, inclusivity and accessibility, this is the three terms here. This really can guide most of your questions. You should be able to answer the question yourself by just those three terms in your head. That is, that's the way I do it. Kind of common sense. Okay, let's dive into BPS. So in BPS policy, we try to break down and kind of have different targets. So, you know, we identify really four different targets, you know, this policy applies to an applies slightly differently depending who you are. So programs and portfolios, this is more internal NASA. There is rules for those people. There are rules for projects. There are rules for PI, which is the majority of people I think would join the call today. And there also are rules for repositories. So me as a project manager for GNAB and LSD, that's, you know, something that I'm missing too. So, you know, in my case, I'm involved on the PI side on the repo side. So that's something important. I also want to emphasize something that you've heard so many times and add BPS through the open science work that we've done. The fair principles is really important and really encourage people to always apply the fair principles. That means on the database, but also on the way we work. So again, for those who forgot, fair stands for findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. It's a term that we use more for database. But think about this concept also you as a PI. So this is the QR code for the policy. I suspect most people have read some of it by today. That was kind of the idea. So we're going to be entertaining questions towards the end of this panel. So let me now dive into some specifics. So first, let's start to define some, some terms in the document that could be confusing. So we defined three objects, research data, operations data and software. So I would say the majority of people in this call today are going to be interested in the first one, the research data. So those are data that are produced by, you know, NASA funding. So, and if you respond to an array or roses call, that's those risks you are going to produce research data. So, and these awards can include grants, cooperative agreements, contract task orders, intelligency transfer, direct in NASA funding. And in general, anything that BPS is funding will be applying to this. But he also applies to that are derived from BPS data. So if you do that augmentation, let's say through gene lab or SDA that would apply to you. Or if you, you know, request sample from NBC that would apply to you as well. And then of course, if you do citizen science that applies. So those are all the research data. Then we have the operation data, which are, you know, very much the data collected by the NASA programs, projects or missions. I will give you more details on this in the next slide. Finally, software is probably the difficult, difficult term to define because it means different things from different people, obviously. So let's try to give the definitions here. Investigation tools or products developed by BPS funding. And it could be script computer programs, 3D printer instructions. It can be either in a source or object code format and it provides, and this is really where it gets tricky. It will provide users some degree of scientific utility. And I know people get stuck with this definition being very vague. But again, use common sense. It will produce a scientific result or a service or otherwise required to reproduce results. Reproducibility is the keyword here. If it's necessary to reproduce your science, it's definitely required. You know, but we can talk more about that. So I'm trying to give, I'm reading this key, these highlights, but I'm trying to emphasize again from my perspective having worked on this for a while. How I look at this thing. So many of the sides are repeats. So I apologize if you feel like I'm saying the same thing multiple times, but sometimes it helps to hear the same things from different angles. So key highlights. So research data and software shall become publicly available no later than the publication of the investigation results. In case you don't publish, then you have, there's another clause. Any data not used to support a publication must be submitted by the end of the period performance grant. The only way to have more time is to ask for no cost extension on the grants, and this will be decided by the grant monitor. So this is not like a given that you can just ask for no cost extension for no good reason. There's got to be justification as to why we need no cost extension. Research software that are developed using BPS funding and used in support of a scientific peer review publication should be released as open source software. That's essential. So think of it as GitHub. I'm going to go into more specifics on this one. Operation data. We're going to give you now a bit more details on that one. So BPS shall commit to full and open sharing of information produced by BPS mission projects. This includes environmental data from flight and ground control analogs, animal husbandry data from flight and ground and logs of flight operation activities. And finally, application of this new policy will begin January 2023 with newly funded research. Now, here is the interesting thing. All existing funding research are encouraged to follow the policy. We really want you to embrace this policy and open science. And so the earlier you do it, the better it's good practice. And quite frankly, if you do it from the beginning of your grant for those of you who just got funding are really encouraged that you do it because it will make your science better and easier. Frankly, waiting for the last moment to turn in your data is always a recipe for disaster and it's always leading to non-compliance. So thinking that compliance is going to be so important. I think good practice for people who really are funded is going to be essential here. Again, cultural change. So you've heard me many times on this topic, the BPS open science data repository. I'm very proud of these products. I think they are amazing. GeneLab is the omics database. ASDA is the sister database as of a few months ago, barely. They are now under one common engine that really uses the fair principle. And so anything you search in GeneLab and ASDA that are common, you will be fine. You will find them under the same roof under the same place. You can even find also tissue available. That's the NBS, the NASA Biological Institutional Scientific Collection. And this really provides a unique ecosystem for BPS. And I have to say we are really ahead of the game even compared to big institute like NIH in terms of health research. We are really shining. And I think it's been really remarkable. The physical science informatic PSI is also a great tool for the physical sciences done at BPS. And so those four databases are in essence what we talk about when we say OSDR. So now that we define the repo, let's see if I can go to the next one. Let me summarize the policy and I'm going to do it differently. This time I'm going to do the summary of this policy based on who you are. And I'm going to start with the investigators, which are probably the majority of people on this call. So let's work through the workflow now as 2023. What's going to happen? Well, first of all, the good news is if you go into open science data repository, you will be able to do a digital research data submission agreement or RDSC. That's new. It used to be a document that is done through Word and through emails. That's over. You now have through our submission portal a system where you can turn in your data submission agreement. It's great. And this highlights something important to us at BPS. We've been working very hard to enable your open science work so that it is not so much work for you. And we will continue doing this. We really want to enable you to do good open science. So our DSA is now online through the OSDR website. You will need a unique identifier as a PI. I use ORCID, many of us do, but you don't have as long as you have an ID, that's all we need. Again, we urge you even if you already have a grant to submit data throughout your grant, do not wait till the last minute. So this is more of an advice here. You submit all your data to designated BPS open science that are repository and I just listed them just a slide before so you should know where you need to put what. All scientific data supporting any publication might be submitted to OSDR at the time of publications. You've heard that at least twice before already today. Any data not used to support publication must be submitted by the end of the period of the performance. And again, no cost extension on grants may be requested. Funded research software to support published result must be reported and released as open source and then something that you haven't heard yet. Well, maybe you did pick it up on the SPD 41A, but investigators sponsored with BPS funding to attend science events open to the public, including, but not limited to conferences workshop and C pose your shop publish any public presentation through a designated NASA repo. And I am sure people are going to ask us what are those repository will probably take that as a question during the panel. So I'm not going to dive on this right now. Okay, let's talk to the data repo folks which would be my team among others. So this is our commitment on the data repo. We are we need to commit to the full and open publication of scientific data by authorized release that what that means is that it is really kind of a dense between the PI and the repo. We can take your data as early as you want. And I would advise again that you turn them in as you start collecting. We have a release that that we will be obeying by and so the release that you the PI control it until the policy kicks in, meaning that your grant is over or you publish something then we kick in. And there is some kind of communication here so you can see how that policy really involves both parties. Back to repo shall provide guidance and tools to assure timely and ongoing delivery of research and operation data. This includes a private workspace data management plan templates and data submission tool. Again, I want to emphasize here that the repo have been doing a lot of work to enable you to do open science without costing you too much time and money and we will continue doing this. Repo shall repeat release operation data as soon as they are received and verify as stated in the data transfer agreement. So something important important here is the data transfer agreement. Just like you have our DSA for PI repos I mean project like repositories have also a data transfer agreement that we have to obey by so you're not the only one everybody has to follow these rules. They are they look different depending of who you are obviously. And I would say the repos have been leading by example anything that's been done is always release as fast as possible. Of course quality of the data or the information has to be verified before we release things so there's a bit of a delay but it's done very quickly typically. Okay, let's finish on the projects which you know think about in research or other projects. Their rules are very similar to the PI but a bit more stringent. They need to assure the timely delivery and quality of operation data to the OSDR per the data transfer agreement again the DTA for them. Operations after that has scientific utility shall be released open source along with sufficient documentation through the NASA software release authority. PI who are outside NASA should feel happy because if you do research within the BPS project we have more stringency in terms of releasing software. We have to go through what we call the NSRA that's painful open science working group. The OSSI have been discussing this as a potential problems or roadblock for open science and we are working very hard to try to make it easier. So I apologize for all of you guys were in the projects and have to deal with NSRA but it is currently the situation. NSRA do not include single use software or commercial software. And even for which BPS is the primary sponsor shall make even publication publicly accessible. And last just like the PI participants sponsor with BPS funding to attend conferences workshop or symposium shall deposit their public scientific publications produce for the event in an appropriate NASA designated report. So we'll talk about that internally that it's going to look a lot like strive that would be my my guess for this. OK, I'm kind of done. So let me wrap this up. What's coming next today is the BPS community town hall. 2023 is the application of roses 23 and all these rules apply as I said we encourage people to follow this policy anyway even if you are not within this new mandate. Also think of this document. Those police documents are not studied. They are living documents as you've seen from SPD 41 a they will be appendix and add them to it. So and then your feedback and this this meeting today is going to help us make it better. It is really something we need to do together. It is not something we imposing. It's something that we should all appreciate and work on it together. And if you have any question please reach out to your technical and grant monitors. Couple of positive notes here. I told to you I told you that we are pushing towards incentives to enable open science. There will be some links in the in the chat about those three calls. Those are calls that are there's no due debts for the solicitation. And there are really great opportunities to you know enable and push open science so that first one is a support innovative open science for projects. There are small typically 100,000 dollars for one year. So look at that. There's also the if you want to do workshop a conference or seminar. So it could be like a hackathon or data challenge or just a simple workshop. You can apply for funding through this this open science call. And then finally if you have if you have existing roses grant and you have a software that you were not planning planning to release. But now that you've seen the policy you want to release it. You can request some support to actually make your software open source software. So take advantage of this of these calls it's you know they are here to really help us here and help you. There are new coming incentive coming up next year focused on open science and platform. So with this, I'd like to thank the group Alan Wood, Daniel Berrios, Karen Stevens and Sam Gebre and especially Sam Gebre who really took the lead towards the past six months in finishing the BPS policy. So with this we'll take questions. Thank you for that presentation. We do have about 25 to 30 minutes for questions. So we'll run through some of the top ones here. We also have help to answer questions from Diane Malarick, BPS deputy division director. Devon Griffin physical sciences program manager. Charmila Bhattacharya program scientist for space biology like Robinson program scientists for fundamental physics. Sam Dobre deputy project manager for gene lab and also a member of the BPS open source science initiative working group. Karen Stevens project manager physical sciences informatics and also a member of the BPS open source science initiative working group and Steven Crawford science mission directorate data science officer. The first question up is, what is BPS doing to reduce the burden on researchers who need to comply with this policy. So gamble I'll start and let the program scientists elaborate but just at a very top level. You know the question was about the burden. So just, you know, taking that component, we are looking as much as possible to use existing systems that are, you know, well known and already used, you know to accomplish the aims. You know, so for example, for some of our experiments and ISS, we're capturing telemetry, you know, and like in the case of cold atom lab as an example, that's going right into the physical sciences informatics database. And so it's primed, you know, it's already there. And so for release later, that will be a relatively easy task. I think implicit in the question is another aspect which is, it's not just the burden the amount of work because there's no doubt there will be additional work involved. But we are looking like I said before, as we build our plan to respond to the decadal survey, build in the right resources, both at NASA and for the researchers in their grants to have the resources. That means the dollars in order to do this work. So there will be additional work, but we are full intent is to recognize those costs and and fund that work that that falls on the investigators side. So I'll leave it now handed over to our program scientists to provide a little bit more specific details on how we plan to limit the burden. Yeah, thanks, Craig. I can go first for the space biology side of the house. So, yeah, as Craig said, you know, and Sylvan said actually earlier there are a few different plans in place here. You saw that Sylvan showed a slide with some some calls that SMD is putting out to help PI so so you know that's one way of getting funding. Earlier as Craig mentioned, we are really working hard and hoping for augmentation to our budget so that we can give those extra little dollar bumps in the grants themselves to help PIs with the the data, you know, collection and and gathering efforts that you just heard about. Those will not the other thing I'm the point I wanted to make is those will not be an effect till for space biology at least our regular calls come out at the end of the year so the end of 2023. So those requirements for the data policy agreements and so on will come for the grants, not the ones that are now in selection and will be announced in a few months not for those ones which will be announced in 2023, but for the ones that come out as part of roses 2023. And in the meantime, we're hoping that the National Academy recommendations will help us get the budget bump that we need to be able to augment the grants because as you know, you know, we need put out calls to, to, you know, the science community every single year, but the dollar amounts are small because that's what we have so we're looking to get those budget plus up so that we can help augment exactly as as folks here are saying. How about the physical sciences side of the house. Oh, I'll second everything that Charmele said it was a great response. I mean the bottom line is that we're going to be. We're going to be the issue in larger grants. Okay, then the next most popular question from I always. What is scientifically useful. Why don't we start with physical sciences. Well, I'll jump in real quick and then Mike can tell me if I'm wrong. As far as I'm concerned scientifically useful means have you provided all of the data and source code and software so that another investigator who wants to build on your work and replicate it before they try and take the next steps. And so if you hold something back that does not allow them to conduct replication, then you have not provided all the scientifically useful data. I see a lot of nodding heads. It sounds like that's an excellent answer. I would have just used the word reproducibility, but it's, I'm in complete agreement with Dr. Griffin that that is one of the central quite, you know, guiding principles is what do you need for reproducibility. Yep, and I'll agree with that for from the space biology side. Great. Onto our next question. Is NASA going to help fund the open access fees for scientific journals. Diane, or Steven, I'm sorry, I saw the sorry Steven, go ahead. Yeah, I was gonna say I since this was a NASA one. The, so open access fees are reasonable open access fees are allowed budget costs. They can be included in your budgets and proposals. The, but open access is not the only way to make your paper openly available. You can also make it openly available via the pub space interface and we're also looking through other methods to make it easy for you to make it open access as well. But posting both as an open access. And publishing at the pre print are both. Unallowable and allowable call. Is anybody else? Does anybody have anything else to contribute to that? Okay. Then our next question is, when did BPS scientific data management policy come into effect? And does it impact current BPS funded research? I do think Sylvain touched on this, but Sylvain, could you respond to that question? Well, I think Charmin, I just explained, right? So the police is active starting in January 2023. But only applicable to roses 23. So that means that if you're in the pipeline right now, that doesn't apply to you yet because you, you know, you responded to a call that did not have the required. You know, guidelines. So anything past roses 23, including roses 23 is going to be where the policy kicks in. One thing I forgot to mention though, and I should say it here is that compliance, we are really trying to reach compliance by 2025. So we are, we know that it's not going to be easy. Like I said, it's a cultural change. And so we expect some, you know, some difficulties along the way to get everybody on board. So that's why SMD came up with that 2025 rule. I think I'm sure Steve can give us more details if you're curious about this date. Okay. Well, thank you. Another question from our audience today is what should happen to data that does not pass minimal quality control? For example, failed controls are known technical problems. Mike, would you like to take that one on? Sure. I mean, a lot of things could happen. I mean, if it doesn't, if it doesn't pass minimum quality control, I would say that the data is probably not scientifically useful. And so it does not need to be published. You can add to this. I think, again, we need to go back to common sense for a lot of the work we've done and like Craig was saying, go back to the guiding principle and the guiding principle are inclusivity, accessibility and reproducibility, right? So this is a guiding principle. And along these lines, you know, that, you know, this kind of question is, we don't want to necessarily, and we have the same challenge in the open sense that a repository, we deal with this all the time. Where do we stop archiving? Because we can't archive everything. It's just too expensive. We don't have an infinite resources to store everything we have, right? This is our role, scientists, to really curate the true information, something that's relevant. So, you know, in good faith. So that's the point is, you know, you are the, the scientists are the first line in this workflow. And we need this curation from you. It's essential. Don't leave it on us. So, you know, if those data are not useful, if there's a good reason to reject them, and that's really the key point here, there's got to be a good scientific reason why they're not acceptable data. You can't just cherry pick, right? But, you know, this is the concept. So again, a lot of this is common sense, I think. And I'll just add, even though it's not necessarily required by the policy, it's really useful to share why data has gotten rejected. That's incredibly useful information as to why someone shouldn't reuse it or why someone shouldn't look at it or what can be done better in the future. So it's also useful to share that why it's being rejected as well. Sam, I think you're going to take our next question. I will. So one of the questions would be, is it'd be great to allow submissions to discipline standard repositories such as NCBI SRA for sequencing and create a way for us for NASA repositories to pull automatically or just reference. And then that way, the data can be shared across multiple communities. And that is true. And I'm going to speak on behalf of G lab because this is sequencing, but I think it's common across all the other repositories. Our goal is not to make you submit twice. So if there is a community or kind of a general repository that you are submitting to, please let the BPS open science repository now, and we will reduce your submission make reduce it instead of making you submit twice. So for example, for, for gene lab, when there's omics data that somebody has submitted to SRA, we will pull that data. We are working with SRA for programmatic connection that does take a little bit of time, but we won't have you submit twice, I promise. So I think that's the case for other ones. The policy does require that the data does go to a NASA repository. So that is a requirement, but that does not allow you from submitting it anywhere else as well. I think if there is an authoritative source and you want to submit in one place, we're happy to be that source and push it over to their other repository or vice versa. So I think that's just kind of a note. We're not here to have you submitted twice, but we do need to make sure that the data is submitted at one of these designated repositories as Sylvan had mentioned earlier. Can I add to this story, but this is a topic that's important. I would advise our community to submit to our SDR first, and we already have a system in place to, you know, push it to SRA and other system. The reason I would advise that we use our open science data repository is because we work very hard on structuring the metadata that are really relevant to us, the space biology community. So because it has been designed for you, when you go to SRA, you go into a generic system that doesn't really care about space bio. They just have a generic system because they're addressing a very wide population of scientists. So my advice is work with us because your metadata will be complete, well curated, and we'll push them to SRA. So one submission, I would advise ours, I can't force you because all you have to do is turn them in somewhere, but that would be my advice to you. Yeah, and I think that answers the next question. Does the policy restrict where you can publish? And it doesn't. It just requires that you publish it into one of our repositories. So if you would like to publish it somewhere else, you may as well. If we do need to make that connection, we can as well. And we can always work with those, you know, community repositories as well to have more programming connections in the future. So that's the goal here. So no restrictions just needs to be submitted in one of the designated repositories on the policy. Thanks, guys. I think our next question is for Steven. How would these policies apply to data generated that was funded by non SMD directorates, for example, space operations or exploration systems. So the current policies in SBD 41 a apply to SMD funded activities. And so these requirements do not apply to the other funding from other sources. I will mention though that the the overall NASA's plan for research access is being updated to be compliant with the recent OSTP memo. And so many of the similar things will will likewise appear across the agency. But that these activities, primarily the SBD 41 a itself only apply to NASA SMD funded activities. Thank you, Steven. And I see Devin I think has a follow up. Oh, yes. Thank you. Yeah, I just want to quickly, you know, I've seen a lot of traffic email and otherwise this kind of feels like SMD and BPS in particular kind of being difficult. But as Steven mentioned, this is coming from OSTP. This is coming from the White House. Every federal agency that funds research is going to have a policy very similar to this. And so, you know, it's not going to be different from he always not going to be different with NSF. They may lag a little bit in implementing it, but you know, it's all the same. I'm Sam, I think you've identified that our next question. Would you mind asking that one? Yes. So this is specific to a company, but I wanted to answer a few questions that are focused on kind of restricted or commercial data. So this one is a core has won the DoD contract, which restricts, which requires strict confidentiality regarding all data and monitor cybersecurity compliance. How does this drive with open science. And then there's a few questions and there as well that talks about restricted and commercial data. So this policy applies to everything that can be open. So there is exceptions for anything that is restricted, proprietary or commercial. So that does not need to be open, but you do need to follow the guidelines that are set in your award. So if it is proprietary, commercial, restricted, and there's some level of information that needs to be shared, please follow that. But in terms of sharing the data or source code, and it is restricted proprietary or commercial, that policy does not apply. So that is stated throughout the policy and in something to note here. So I just wanted to kind of cover a few questions that are related to kind of restricted commercial or proprietary software and data as well. And I just wanted to add to that that I think it was mentioned earlier that what when you get a grant award you work with the team to make the agreement. And so at that point you should make it known that the data or the specific thing that you're concerned about is either sensitive or, you know, for whatever reason it cannot be or should not be open source in which case that's when you negotiate with us. Yeah, and I'll just add that of course we still have to comply with ITAR laws. So things, you know, that are not allowed to be public. You know, we don't put those into open databases. Thank you. There was a question about any concern about open science related to designated countries. For example, China. This is a question I think back to Sylvain. Can you elaborate on the designated NASA repositories that's quote designated NASA repositories. Can you elaborate on that. And as I say that we only have a few more minutes left for Q&A. So we'll only have a time for maybe one or two after this. Yeah, and I think Sam also can answer, but I think, you know, so if you're within NASA, behind the far walls of your NASA person, we use strive as a mechanism by which we can make our publication or our publication presentation. Everything is basically going through the strive process. So I would say internally we have a mechanism for it. That's one example. Again, the open science guidelines are, you know, needs to be applied based on who you are. So this is a requirement for us and NASA. So that's, that's probably what we'll be using for external PI. There are different tools and I think Sam, you know, them better than me, so may you come. Yeah, so SMD and NASA I guess as a whole is going to work on designating that NASA repository for making your presentations publicly available. But the community already has great ones, which already has been used by us. So Zenodo is one of them that you can upload your presentation. Fake shares another. So there's some examples that you can put it in. So the goal is to make that available and hopefully shortly we'll kind of designate a repository. It could be one of those two, but we can designate a repository for where you should share your publications from workshops. Some conferences and workshops already do that. So they do make those presentations available as well. And that would meet the criteria. Thanks guys. Craig, this question, I think is for you is leadership working to develop relationships with ISS. National lab axiom orbital reef, other commercial space entities to make those data open. This is also I guess a question for Steven. There's also a comment shared lots of the PIs would share data if they do it was allowed. Yeah, so there's two different, you know, bits there so ISS national lab that they, they are funded by the space operations mission directorate. So in a formal sense, they will have their own implementation policy for this. But certainly we want to work with them to minimize alternative approaches to doing this and capitalize on, you know, using the same processes the same databases, etc. As much as we can. It's early days in this in this implementation as far as I know they haven't developed their policy yet, but that's, you know, on our mental map. Similarly with the commercial Leo destinations. It's very early days for those but that's a whole nother subject. That is a very important one, you know, especially when it comes to proprietary information. And so that's on our mental map, but it's early days in the development of these commercial Leo destinations. So those conversations have not taken place yet. So in both cases, good question. It's on our mental map, but we're not actively having those conversations today. Another question. What will be the punishment for non compliance with the policy. I'm going to ask Craig that question. Yes, we are, we're considering all kinds of imaginative punishments. But no, seriously, I think at a minimum, and this is a good question. I think at a minimum, this little lack of compliance will have an impact on proposal evaluations, you know, just like productivity, etc. is a factor that is meta to the exact proposal. And investigators compliance with the data policies and the software policies and previous awards will be a factor. Will there be anything actively done during the current award in question. That's another matter to which we don't really have anything to offer at this stage. And yeah, I'll just follow up with with Craig there to say that, you know, the compliance question is something that we're going to continue to look at and what are the right mechanisms in the right processes, both with consultation with the community. And over the next, you know, next few years. But our real main focus is making this as easy as possible. So it's a, you know, kind of a normal part of your workflow. And so that's really going to be our, our focus within SMD. Easy and funded. Thank you, Craig. Thank you, Steven. This is our last question. I understand that this policy is applicable to new roses selections. As it has to be implemented in the grant. Will it be made applicable to existing PIs that need to continue onto a new proposal or grant, perhaps due to delayed flight execution. Shamila, would you answer that one? Yeah, sure. That's an excellent question. So, so there's two ways to look at it or two possibilities with that question. So, if you had a flight grant. That was sort of, so to speak, grandfather, you know, so it came out before the 2023 roses cycle. Then in general, as we discussed earlier, this, you know, these principles wouldn't necessarily apply, meaning we encourage folks to to comply and to make that data available, but there wouldn't be the same sort of compliance. Scoot me as there will be for grants after 2023. So that is if the flight grant, let's say the flight is delayed, but you're still under that grant. And, and you're going to fly, let's say in 2024 or 2025, but you were still in that grandfather. So that's, that's what that explanation. However, if your grant terminated, and you couldn't fly for whatever reason, or it was deselected for flight, and you are putting in a new proposal. So, if the similar idea, but you're now in in another grant cycle, so to speak, and it's for a roses call that's 2023 or beyond, then yes, these, these things that we just talked about would apply. So hopefully that explains that distinction. Yes, Sylvan. You know, I just wanted to add something. It's, it's not exactly to this question, but the general philosophy is that I think for those of you are actively working on a grant or are in this kind of a transient situation. I really encourage you to reach out to us. The open sense that I repository and if you are not necessarily planning to turn in data because it's just too much work, you don't have. It was not into your, you know, your roadmap, please reach out to us help us identify your roadblock. Maybe we can help you make it happen. We will try our best to at least identify where you get stuck. Where is the work? And this is something we can even report back to headquarter to tell them, look, this is really the roadblocks. We've been thinking of different tools to help you guys. I would say use our workspace. It's a place where you can share your data with your with your students with everyone. And this is what we pull from when we actually load the data into the repo. Just having your data already in the workspace is really half of your work. Organize your data, work with us. We've been doing the MP with all new funding people, the data management plan and the RDSC help us identify the type of data you're going to generate when you're going to generate them. And we can give you advice on how to organize your data instead of doing it at the end when you really have created a profile in our organization that may not necessarily fit the system we put in place. So, again, work with us early and we can really make it easier for you at the very least. So that would be my advice to everyone who's already funded. Work with us. We'll try to help you as much as possible. Thank you, Charmilla. Thank you, Sylvain. That's all the time we have left for question and answer today. Craig, you have about two minutes to make some final remarks and then I have a couple items to close out with housekeeping. All right. Thank you, Gamble. Well, thank you all for attending today for joining us and for the engaging questions. We very much look forward to working with you to take our open science practices to the next level. We talked about how open science is really critical for the scientific reproducibility. I mean, it's a very foundation of experimental research. We talked about accessibility and inclusivity, so a full spectrum of interested parties can have access to the exciting work sponsored by BPS. One thing we didn't mention earlier, but it's another factor for why it's important to do open science and do it well, is accountability. You know, as much as we are interested in our areas of research and stuff, conducting our research is not a birthright. And these open science practices are one way to show our stakeholders how we are good stewards of the resources we are given. So, again, we're very much looking forward to working with you to take our open science practices to the next level. And with that, back to you, Gamble. Thanks, Craig. I just want to remind everybody to go to science.nasa.gov if you want to watch this video again or to look at the presentation. We will also be taking your questions and creating a frequently asked questions document page, which will be added to our BPS website on science.nasa.gov. Additionally, if you are on social media, please follow BPS. Our Twitter handle is at nasaspaceci, that's N-A-S-A-S-P-A-C-E with S-C-I at the end, so that's nasaspaceci. And on that, thank you very much, everybody, for joining us today.